CHI/00UC/LSC/2024/0009 — service charge decision
In CHI/00UC/LSC/2024/0009, decided 9 January 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 36 South Street, Eastbourne BN21 4XB and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 36 South Street, Eastbourne BN21 4XB
Decision date: 9 January 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administration charges (2024) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2024) | £6,000 | £750 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Utilities (2023) | £588 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Utilities (2023) | £360 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £333 | £333 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £3,170 | £3,170 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £1,430 | £1,430 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020) | £2,760 | £750 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the tribunal accepts the respondent's concession that no charge of £300 has ever been made. On this basis, no administration charge of £300 is payable under para 5 of Sch.11 to the 2002 Act.”
“There are therefore two ways in which the relevant consultation requirements were not complied with in relation to the qualifying works. The recoverable relevant costs are limited to £250 for each applicant by s.20 of the 1985 Act.”
“the tribunal finds the cost of connecting the communal electricity supply to Flat E was not reasonably incurred. By connecting the supply to Flat E, the respondent merely repeated the deficiencies with the previous arrangement.”
“Both the applicants and the respondent treated these as part of the 2023 electrical reconnection works... The tribunal therefore reaches the same conclusion on this as with issue 4.”
“The tribunal agrees with the respondent. Although the gate was a new installation, the provision for security in the alleyway falls within the 'maintenance and proper and convenient management and running of the building' as set out in para 10 of Sch.4 to the 1987 Lease.”
“The whole issue of compliance with the s.20 consultation requirements was expressly dealt with by the judge in relation to the internal decorations... The tribunal again therefore has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter under s.27A(4)(c) of the 1985 Act.”
“It is far from clear which service charges were demanded from the lessees in each year. Only one invoice for payment (dated 28 October 2021) was included in the bundle, and even that failed to comply with s.21B of the 1985 Act and s.47/48 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.”
“None of these accounts are in the form required by clause 4(6) of the 1987 Lease, nor in the form recommended by para 7.10 of the RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code (3rd ed) and Tech 03/11.”
“The conduct of the parties in the proceedings has not been ideal – neither decided to engage legal representation and as a result many relevant documents were not disclosed by the respondent or included in the bundle by the applicants. In many instances both parties were unable to focus on the issues.”
“the contract notice itself does not state the reasons for awarding the contract to Mr Croxton. This is all the more serious, given the issues expressly raised about his estimate in the October 2023 notice.”
This summary is assembled from the structured record of the published decision; amounts appear only where the tribunal stated them. Always rely on the full decision itself.